Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
adam79 adam79 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

I'm looking for a compression unit for tracking vocals. I have a couple
compression plug-ins for my Pro Tools 7.4 LE setup, but as anyone that
owns PT LE knows, you can only add the compression after tracking. I
obviously don't have the funds for a Urei 1176 (as I can't even afford
to upgrade PT from 7.4), so I'm looking for something that can offer me
some bang for my buck. Is there anything in the $200-300 range that's
even worth owning? I'm slowly putting away money so I can eventually buy
a quality compressor, like the 1176, but I need something in the
meantime that will give me quality results.

Thanks,
-Adam
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mark Mark is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 966
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Oct 19, 8:22*pm, adam79 wrote:
I'm looking for a compression unit for tracking vocals. I have a couple
compression plug-ins for my Pro Tools 7.4 LE setup, but as anyone that
owns PT LE knows, you can only add the compression after tracking.



why do you want to compress during tracking...

there are no re-dos with the comp settings this way..

if you track dry, then you you can adjust the comp to taste after the
fact...

digital recording has plenty of dynamic range so there is no technical
need to compress on the way in...

you can compress to taste as part of the mixing process

Mark


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

In article ,
adam79 wrote:
I'm looking for a compression unit for tracking vocals. I have a couple
compression plug-ins for my Pro Tools 7.4 LE setup, but as anyone that
owns PT LE knows, you can only add the compression after tracking. I
obviously don't have the funds for a Urei 1176 (as I can't even afford
to upgrade PT from 7.4), so I'm looking for something that can offer me
some bang for my buck. Is there anything in the $200-300 range that's
even worth owning? I'm slowly putting away money so I can eventually buy
a quality compressor, like the 1176, but I need something in the
meantime that will give me quality results.


rnc.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
mcp6453[_2_] mcp6453[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 749
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On 10/19/2011 10:27 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
adam79 wrote:
I'm looking for a compression unit for tracking vocals. I have a couple
compression plug-ins for my Pro Tools 7.4 LE setup, but as anyone that
owns PT LE knows, you can only add the compression after tracking. I
obviously don't have the funds for a Urei 1176 (as I can't even afford
to upgrade PT from 7.4), so I'm looking for something that can offer me
some bang for my buck. Is there anything in the $200-300 range that's
even worth owning? I'm slowly putting away money so I can eventually buy
a quality compressor, like the 1176, but I need something in the
meantime that will give me quality results.


rnc.
--scott


+1

http://www.fmraudio.com

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
adam79 adam79 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On 10/19/11 8:46 PM, Mark wrote:
On Oct 19, 8:22 pm, wrote:
I'm looking for a compression unit for tracking vocals. I have a couple
compression plug-ins for my Pro Tools 7.4 LE setup, but as anyone that
owns PT LE knows, you can only add the compression after tracking.



why do you want to compress during tracking...

there are no re-dos with the comp settings this way..

if you track dry, then you you can adjust the comp to taste after the
fact...

digital recording has plenty of dynamic range so there is no technical
need to compress on the way in...

you can compress to taste as part of the mixing process

Mark



I always thought that tracking vocals with compression was common
practice. Are you saying that it's the opposite with digital recordings?

In response to the RNC recommendation posts, that was my first choice..
until I got alot of positive feedback for the ART Pro VLA. Anyone have
any experience with this unit?

Thanks,
-Adam


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dec [Cluskey] Dec [Cluskey] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 167
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Oct 20, 9:29*am, adam79 wrote:
I always thought that tracking vocals with compression was common
practice. Are you saying that it's the opposite with digital recordings?


Adam

I have never compressed vocal on the way in in my life!

That would be just the same as adding reverb to a vocal while
tracking... impossible to remove or reduce after the event.

You may be mistaking compression for limiting .... many guys will
limit a vocal on the way in as a safety measure in case the vocalist
gives a superb, once in a lifetime, take and yet overloads ... using a
limiter will ensure that the vocal will not be overloaded and that
superb vocal will be captured.

I personally do not do this as I have always believed that the tracked
vocal should be in its purest form ... all the brilliance is added in
the mix. Again I have always felt that the great engineers will have
a 'spot on' input level to achieve a perfect recorded track. All the
greatness is in front of the mic. never after - it is impossible to
make a cr*p vocal sound great.

As a vocal compressor in the mix I cannot speak highly enough of the
TLA Fatman 1 and 2 .... favourite of many hip hop giants.... quite the
best I have ever used. I currently use it on all main vocals in the
mix.

I would suggest, respectfully, changing method of recording ... and
grab a Fatman!

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Michael Dines[_2_] Michael Dines[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

adam79 wrote:

I'm looking for a compression unit for tracking vocals. I have a couple
compression plug-ins for my Pro Tools 7.4 LE setup, but as anyone that
owns PT LE knows, you can only add the compression after tracking. I
obviously don't have the funds for a Urei 1176 (as I can't even afford
to upgrade PT from 7.4), so I'm looking for something that can offer me
some bang for my buck. Is there anything in the $200-300 range that's
even worth owning? I'm slowly putting away money so I can eventually buy
a quality compressor, like the 1176, but I need something in the
meantime that will give me quality results.

Thanks,
-Adam

You can add compression while tracking in PT 7.4 LE.

Set up an aux track, mic in to aux, bus the aux to your record track.
Then you can put an expander gate, compressors, eq, a limiter, etc, in
the aux track and they'll process the signal before it's recorded.

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Oct 20, 3:29*am, adam79 wrote:
On 10/19/11 8:46 PM, Mark wrote:



On Oct 19, 8:22 pm, *wrote:
I'm looking for a compression unit for tracking vocals. I have a couple
compression plug-ins for my Pro Tools 7.4 LE setup, but as anyone that
owns PT LE knows, you can only add the compression after tracking.


why do you want to compress during tracking...


there are no re-dos with the comp settings this way..


if you track dry, then you you can adjust the comp to taste after the
fact...


digital recording has plenty of dynamic range so there is no technical
need to compress on the way in...


you can compress to taste as part of the mixing process


Mark


I always thought that tracking vocals with compression was common
practice.


It was, in the analog multitrack era.

Are you saying that it's the opposite with digital recordings?


In response to the RNC recommendation posts, that was my first choice..
until I got alot of positive feedback for the ART Pro VLA. Anyone have
any experience with this unit?


No, but in general, I've had decent luck with the RNC. Also, of all
things, the PreSonus Blue compressor, when set to manual (their
presets don't sound good to me). If it's working, that is; PreSonus
had a problem with bad switches and ribbon cables in the Blue
compressor.

Peace,
Paul
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_3_] Richard Webb[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Thu 2011-Oct-20 16:19, Paul writes:
snip

In response to the RNC recommendation posts, that was my first choice..
until I got alot of positive feedback for the ART Pro VLA. Anyone have

any experience with this unit?


No, but in general, I've had decent luck with the RNC. Also, of all
things, the PreSonus Blue compressor, when set to manual (their
presets don't sound good to me). If it's working, that is; PreSonus
had a problem with bad switches and ribbon cables in the Blue
compressor.


NEver used the PreSonus but can highly recommend the RNC.
Especially if you play out and want compression on an
element while gigging. Were it me I'd steer clear of the
Art as well, I"ve never found any of their gear that was of
reasonable quality. But then I was working with a live act
where one of the musos had an ARt compressor and I tried it
for a few minutes, wondered who touched the suck knob and
patched a Behringer across the channel where I'd patched the Art on a suggestion from its owner. WAs already using my
rnc's elsewhere g.

Have heard good words on the Blue Paul mentions elsewhere as well, and Paul's opinions are some I've come to respect in
this newsgroup.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

adam79 wrote:

I always thought that tracking vocals with compression was common
practice. Are you saying that it's the opposite with digital
recordings?


You need to define the problem you need to solve. Compressing when tracking
can save you a processing step and the hardware compressor may be just
right. Your bet, if you win you save a digital processing step, if you loose
you re-record.

-Adam


Kind regards

Peter Larsen




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
adam79 adam79 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On 10/20/11 3:48 PM, Michael Dines wrote:
You can add compression while tracking in PT 7.4 LE.

Set up an aux track, mic in to aux, bus the aux to your record track.
Then you can put an expander gate, compressors, eq, a limiter, etc, in
the aux track and they'll process the signal before it's recorded.


Derp! Thanks.
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MarkK MarkK is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

You can add compression while tracking in PT 7.4 LE.

Set up an aux track, mic in to aux, bus the aux to your record track.
Then you can put an expander gate, compressors, eq, a limiter, etc, in
the aux track and they'll process the signal before it's recorded.


Derp! Thanks.


there you go.. as long as we have tracks -a- plenty..you can do it both
ways...

record one track clean and one track compressed..

If the compression comes out good, you are all set, if not, you still have
the clean track to work with....

Here is another tip...
take one track and compress it to he** and back , really slam it..
take another track that is clean and uncompressed.
Now use BOTH tracks in the mix...... add in the compressed one about -20 dB
compared to the uncompressed one. The combined result is that it fills in
the weaker parts without squashing the dynamics....

With all the bells and whistles available on the market I am surprised I
have not seen a compressor with this feature built into it..


Mark


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_3_] Richard Webb[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Sat 2011-Oct-22 13:09, MarkK writes:
there you go.. as long as we have tracks -a- plenty..you can do it
both ways...


record one track clean and one track compressed..


If the compression comes out good, you are all set, if not, you still
have the clean track to work with....


Have done this when I only had 16 or 24 to work with even.

Here is another tip...
take one track and compress it to he** and back , really slam it..
take another track that is clean and uncompressed.
Now use BOTH tracks in the mix...... add in the compressed one about
-20 dB compared to the uncompressed one. The combined result is
that it fills in the weaker parts without squashing the dynamics....


OF course, have used that one.

With all the bells and whistles available on the market I am
surprised I have not seen a compressor with this feature built into
it..


Why does the compressor need the "feature" when you can just mult the signal you're sending to the compressor? All sorts of ways to do this, the hardware compressor doesn't need it
as a feature. YOu already have those capabilities. USe the compressor from an aux send instead of an insert, or mult
the output of the insert. There's your feature.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
adam79 adam79 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On 10/20/11 10:30 AM, Dec [Cluskey] wrote:

As a vocal compressor in the mix I cannot speak highly enough of the
TLA Fatman 1 and 2 .... favourite of many hip hop giants.... quite the
best I have ever used. I currently use it on all main vocals in the
mix.


I'm into rock, so "hip hop giants" do interest me, but from the way you
speak of it, I assume it sounds well with most genres. I took a brief
glimpse at the Fat 1; it's well reviewed. Besides the presets, you can
adjust it manually, right? Also, is the Fat 2 a new improved version of
the Fat 1?

Anyone have any experience with the FMR PBC-6A? It's double the price of
the RNLA, and 4 times more expensive than the RNC (I see them go for
$100 on eBay all the time), but from what I've read, it out performs the
RNLA and RNC (especially on vocals and acoustic guitar).

Thanks,
-Adam

  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
vdubreeze vdubreeze is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Oct 22, 1:09*pm, "MarkK" wrote:


Here is another tip...
take one track and compress it to he** and back , really slam it..
take another track that is clean *and uncompressed.
Now use BOTH tracks in the mix...... add in the compressed one about -20 dB
compared to the uncompressed one. * The combined result is that it fills in
the weaker parts without squashing the dynamics....

With all the bells and whistles available *on the market I am surprised I
have not seen a compressor with this feature built into it..



There are a few, though I'm having trouble remembering. Chandler
compressors have it. I've heard Dave Hill's new CraneSong Titan has a
versatile implementation of it. Not only is it a great technique, but
when I was assisting in places in the early '80s every time a jingle
engineer came in to do a session they ALWAYS bussed (nearly) the whole
track to a slammed compressor and brought it back up and blended it
with the non-compressed tracks on the way to the 2 track. Jay Messina
was the first guy I saw do it,and then I realized that most of the
commercial engineers did it when they came in to do rock projects.
It really does work in a way that a good non-blended compressor
setting does not. It's a very cool technique. If you've spent much
time blending sounds (bass DI and amp, or two guitar mics) to taste,
moving two faders against each other is a natural way to arrive at a
sound. Better than tweaking parameters sometimes.

Problem with doing it with plugins though is that you pick up little
bits of latency with every thing you add to a track, and this only
works at exactly perfect lining up. So you need to know exactly what
the compressor's latency is, or work in a DAW with precise automatic
compensation (not all have it).




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals


"vdubreeze" wrote in message
...
Problem with doing it with plugins though is that you pick up little
bits of latency with every thing you add to a track, and this only
works at exactly perfect lining up. So you need to know exactly what
the compressor's latency is, or work in a DAW with precise automatic
compensation (not all have it).


Not just plug-ins with many hardware boxes being digital these days as well.
In fact you're more likely to get the DAW to compensate for plug-in latency
than outboard hardware latency, but you can do it manually in post if you
have the time/patience.

Trevor.






  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

Peter Larsen wrote:
adam79 wrote:

I always thought that tracking vocals with compression was common
practice. Are you saying that it's the opposite with digital
recordings?


You need to define the problem you need to solve. Compressing when tracking
can save you a processing step and the hardware compressor may be just
right. Your bet, if you win you save a digital processing step, if you loose
you re-record.


Precisely.

In the analogue world people often would track with compression because the
tracking machine had limited dynamic range; compression let you bring the
levels up a little higher over the noise floor. These days we don't have
to worry so much about it.

Often with jazz performers I don't compress the vocal at all, just ride the
faders.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
adam79 adam79 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On 10/22/11 11:51 PM, vdubreeze wrote:

they ALWAYS bussed (nearly) the whole
track to a slammed compressor and brought it back up and blended it
with the non-compressed tracks on the way to the 2 track.



When you say they "brought it back up" do you mean bringing the fader
back up to bring the track back to 0dB? Sometimes I'll almost max out
the input volume on the compressor and then raise the output (which
always ends up to be a lesser value than the input) to squash the track.

If you've spent much
time blending sounds (bass DI and amp, or two guitar mics) to taste,
moving two faders against each other is a natural way to arrive at a
sound. Better than tweaking parameters sometimes.


What do you mean by "moving two faders against each other?" I probably
know what you're talking about, but am unfamiliar with the terminology.

Thanks for the tip,
-Adam
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
vdubreeze vdubreeze is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

In the analogue world people often would track with compression because the
tracking machine had limited dynamic range; compression let you bring the
levels up a little higher over the noise floor. *These days we don't have
to worry so much about it.


Also people record with hardware compressors when they give them a
sound they like. Nothing wrong with that.

It's also a habit attained from the days when if you had multiple
great sounding compressors at hand you were fortunate. You couldn't
put a good compressor on something during the mix because it was on
something else. I never thought about having a million options during
a mix because we didn't have them, so we learned how to get the sound
75% there during tracking, including eq and everything else, and then
the mix would practically mix itself.

Naturally these days none of that matters and you can put down 20
instances of compressors no problem. But recording has become such a
dreary affair when we put it all in flat and leave everything to the
mix. The same way we've lost the feeling of urgency in a mix where
you could feel the eight arms scrambling on the board sweating to get
through the song, I think we've lost more than we've gained by being
able to track as long as there's signal coming through and having so
many options later. When I think of all the great recorded music I
love none of it was recorded using any rules that evolved after the
age of DAWs (which are true rules, granted), so I'm a fan of making it
sound good on the way in and if you do it wrong you'll know better
next time. Not saying it's the only/better way to go, but it's not
the evil thing some make it out to be. Some times you gotta say the
heck with headroom and bits and record something that you made sound
great.
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

vdubreeze wrote:
In the analogue world people often would track with compression because t=

he
tracking machine had limited dynamic range; compression let you bring the
levels up a little higher over the noise floor. =A0These days we don't ha=

ve
to worry so much about it.


Also people record with hardware compressors when they give them a
sound they like. Nothing wrong with that.


Absolutely, but you can do that at mixdown time now, and not have to make
so many decisions in tracking.

You can argue that this is bad and that it's better to have the entire
mix planned out during tracking, and I might agree with you if you did.

It's also a habit attained from the days when if you had multiple
great sounding compressors at hand you were fortunate. You couldn't
put a good compressor on something during the mix because it was on
something else. I never thought about having a million options during
a mix because we didn't have them, so we learned how to get the sound
75% there during tracking, including eq and everything else, and then
the mix would practically mix itself.


It's true, when I worked at a studio with one compressor, it was not
unusual to use it on one track for tracking and then on a different
track (or on the 2-buss) for mixdown. Even worse, the console only
had cut EQ, and that on only the first four channels.

Naturally these days none of that matters and you can put down 20
instances of compressors no problem. But recording has become such a
dreary affair when we put it all in flat and leave everything to the
mix. The same way we've lost the feeling of urgency in a mix where
you could feel the eight arms scrambling on the board sweating to get
through the song, I think we've lost more than we've gained by being
able to track as long as there's signal coming through and having so
many options later.


I like dynamic range, I think we ought to have more of it, personally.
There's too much scrambling on too many mixes for my taste, and of
course now with DAWs and envelopes it's just worse.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
vdubreeze vdubreeze is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Oct 24, 10:58*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


I like dynamic range, I think we ought to have more of it, personally.
There's too much scrambling on too many mixes for my taste, and of



I didn't describe that so well. I didn't mean that the mix was
scrambled, just that the arms were poised, ready to make those three
moves simultaneously when the bridge hit, and hopefully they didn't
end up too much like a game of Twister, and if you missed it you had
to do it again : ) (or maybe mixed the bridge and edited it in with
a blade). And if you didn't have enough hands the move didn't get
done. Or maybe you went out in the hall and got someone to move a
fader from this grease pencil mark to that one when you shouted. And
when you all got a good mix after two arduous hours it was a great
feeling.

A lot different than the feeling you get from a good mix after 14
hours of the same three pairs of hands pointing at the computer screen
with their suggestions! : )
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
vdubreeze vdubreeze is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Oct 25, 12:43*pm,
(Richard Webb) wrote:

I'd posit over my first cup of coffee, but maybe not well
that the lack of an actual producer who understands the
music resulting in self production has necessitated this
mindset



And it's the producer who wasn't an engineer who said "That's not what
I want it to sound like" during tracking that we're missing. And I'd
add that we're losing the ability to commit to anything, or at least
losing people who knew how to commit.

Every half hour someone in the session should jump up and scream
"COMMIT!!!!!" : )
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_3_] Richard Webb[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Mon 2011-Oct-24 22:58, Scott Dorsey writes:
snip

Also people record with hardware compressors when they give them a
sound they like. Nothing wrong with that.


Absolutely, but you can do that at mixdown time now, and not have to
make so many decisions in tracking.


You can argue that this is bad and that it's better to have the
entire mix planned out during tracking, and I might agree with you
if you did.


I have always argued that though. My opinion has always
been that you should have a pretty darned good idea what
it's going to sound like before you decide to record it.
YEs I've done the throw up some ideas and see what happens
thing when creating a work for somebody, but then I was
playing with midi modules in my own space and wasn't billing the customer by the hour g. EIther that, or it was my own creation, but by the time we go to record it I've a darned
good idea what I want to hear coming out of the speakers
when it's all done. But then I believe I'm supposed to
capture a performance, not manufacture one g.
When called upon to do the manufacturing that's a different
ball game g.
big snip

I like dynamic range, I think we ought to have more of it,
personally. There's too much scrambling on too many mixes for my
taste, and of course now with DAWs and envelopes it's just worse.


OF course it is, a whole generation of folks has been taught to manufacture performances instead of capture them.

I'd posit over my first cup of coffee, but maybe not well
that the lack of an actual producer who understands the
music resulting in self production has necessitated this
mindset, which is why we have the tools we have today, they
are the tools the folks demanded to do the kind of work they do g. YOu and I, along with others of us "old farts" in
this group would argue that our way is better, but plenty of folks find they make recordings that please them using these tools in that way. IF I've got to redraw envelopes all the
time the way I like to work, it's time to retrack with the
performers actually paying attention to their dynamics g.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

vdubreeze wrote:

On Oct 25, 12:43 pm,
(Richard Webb) wrote:

I'd posit over my first cup of coffee, but maybe not well
that the lack of an actual producer who understands the
music resulting in self production has necessitated this
mindset



And it's the producer who wasn't an engineer who said "That's not what
I want it to sound like" during tracking that we're missing. And I'd
add that we're losing the ability to commit to anything, or at least
losing people who knew how to commit.

Every half hour someone in the session should jump up and scream
"COMMIT!!!!!" : )


The value of commitment is not much understood these days, and that
comes down to people not having a clear target in their mind's ear.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_3_] Richard Webb[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Tue 2011-Oct-25 18:38, hank alrich writes:
(Richard Webb) wrote:


I'd posit over my first cup of coffee, but maybe not well
that the lack of an actual producer who understands the
music resulting in self production has necessitated this
mindset

snip
And it's the producer who wasn't an engineer who said "That's not what
I want it to sound like" during tracking that we're missing. And I'd
add that we're losing the ability to commit to anything, or at least

losing people who knew how to commit.


The value of commitment is not much understood these days, and that
comes down to people not having a clear target in their mind's ear.


OF course it does, because we can just record by the
principle of "if you throw enough **** at a wall some's
gonna stick." INstead of going in with that view of what
you want. Experimentation and exploration can be great
tools, but sometimes you need the opposite. There are
times I"ve stumbled onto something I liked via
experimentation and exploration, but usually I've got that
sound in my head that I hear when I hear a song I've written and wish to present to folks. IF the song has actual words
then those words tell a story, and the musical accompaniment with those words is supposed to help me convey that story to the listener's brain. That means I'm committed to what i
want to hear before I place microphones in front of
instruments, etc. When the listener hears it that's what I
want him/her to hear as well.

One of the reasons I embraced all the midi module stuff back in the late '80's and early '90's so much was the ability to provide a rough sketch to the musicians I worked with,
enabling us to concentrate on such things as nuance. Even
when I'd do full on orchestral arrangements for a jingle or
for a regular song I'd find the midi orchestra a pale
imitation of the real thing, but it got my idea across at
least.

Still I fell into the same trap if I wasn't careful, too
many choices, and with all those choices you find yourself
just throwing mud on a wall to see what sticks, and losing
sight of your aural vision of the owrk in your mind in the
process if you weren't careful.
My lady would hear me work on an arrangement sometimes for a day or so, then discard it and start from scratch because my experimentation just drew me further and further away from
where i wanted to go.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

Richard Webb wrote:

The value of commitment is not much understood these days, and that
comes down to people not having a clear target in their mind's ear.


OF course it does, because we can just record by the
principle of "if you throw enough **** at a wall some's
gonna stick."


IMO a clear vision of the intended sonic perspective is required when
setting up the mics, that is where committing starts. What I don't like to
to is to commit to a mix when doing live recordings, I want to be able to
postpone the mix to @home because there just is no way to mix well,
time-offset adjustment included, on headphones in the room the music is
performed in and it gets only marginally possible via loudspeakers in the
adjoining room if available.

INstead of going in with that view of what
you want. Experimentation and exploration can be great
tools,


My opinion: that is the mic setup phase, it is there the sound is defined.
And that is also why it must be possibble to come close to the intended
result in the monitor mix, it has to sound "about right" and it has to be
mixable, preferably almost by itself. There's something wrong with the
recorded audio if the mix is difficult and ends up like a rescue-effort.

Richard


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_4_] Richard Webb[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Wed 2011-Oct-26 16:03, Peter Larsen writes:
OF course it does, because we can just record by the
principle of "if you throw enough **** at a wall some's
gonna stick."


IMO a clear vision of the intended sonic perspective is required
when setting up the mics, that is where committing starts. What I
don't like to to is to commit to a mix when doing live recordings,
I want to be able to postpone the mix to @home because there just
is no way to mix well, time-offset adjustment included, on
headphones in the room the music is performed in and it gets only
marginally possible via loudspeakers in the adjoining room if
available.


I know, which is why I love my remote truck control room! I just can't make it pay for itself anymore. Three or four
times a year just doesn't pay to keep it on the road! But I love that freedom to commit, as you say. I guess you hold
your nose and thank GOd for multi track g.
That to me was always where commit starts, when putting up
the mics, and the placement of elements in the space.

Like you if it doesn't almost mix itself I didn't do it
right!!!



Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
cporro cporro is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

+1 RNP

personally i never track with compression. as scott mentioned (i
think) if you record in 24bit, and you should, there really is no need
for it. you could have RMS levels of -20 and peaks at -10 and still be
fine. in fact i think that's a far better way to gain stage.

if you are to the point where you can hear differences between
compressors...you can hear differences in settings like attack and
release etc. and your ear says to you "use a compressor when tracking"
then you might want to look into one. otherwise you are guessing imo
and better off skipping it.

as far as a good vocal here are my priorities:
1) good performance.
2) mic placement
3) room sound
4) mic selection

all of these are way more influential then some compressor on the
input.

it took me along time to get this but gear is not magical. ears are.
skill is. engineering is. which is very cool if you think about it.

and there are compressor with parallel compression out there. my daw,
samplitude, comes stock with a very nice one called am-munition. and i
hardly use the setting. ha. but as others have said that hardly a
feature you need as you can easily set it up yourself like the
original NYC engineers did.

if you can compress going in on PT, as some say you can, you need to
either do hardware monitoring for the vocalist or have very low
latency for them. otherwise it can be very distracting. you may be
able to have no monitoring if they sing with one can off an ear. but
latency can be a monitoring issue.

  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
cporro cporro is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

one more thing. i agree with everyone about committing to audio and
having a vision to work toward. but those things take time to develop.
its kind of like telling a new drummer to play to the groove of the
bass. he's just trying to get the kick to be in time. with time he'll
have the skills to create a feel but it's up the road.

so OP, don't get discouraged if you don't have the sounds in your head
or have a vision yet. that's a skill that come with practice.

there is an interview with george massenburg in one of my mixing books
where he is asked:

Q: can you hear the final mix in your head before you start?
A: No. i generally look for a trace of feeling and diddle things until
i get a response....

he goes on for about a paragraph after that but the answer is kind of
uplifting since a guy of that caliber is admitting he does not know
exactly what the end product will be.




  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
adam79 adam79 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On 10/27/11 9:43 AM, cporro wrote:

if you can compress going in on PT, as some say you can, you need to
either do hardware monitoring for the vocalist or have very low
latency for them. otherwise it can be very distracting. you may be
able to have no monitoring if they sing with one can off an ear. but
latency can be a monitoring issue.


How do you deal with the headphones bleeding into the vocal mic? I
recently had this issue and had success gating the track.

Thanks,
-Adam


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

adam79 wrote:

On 10/27/11 9:43 AM, cporro wrote:


if you can compress going in on PT, as some say you can, you need to
either do hardware monitoring for the vocalist or have very low
latency for them. otherwise it can be very distracting. you may be
able to have no monitoring if they sing with one can off an ear. but
latency can be a monitoring issue.


How do you deal with the headphones bleeding into the vocal mic? I
recently had this issue and had success gating the track.


That problem would be an excellent reason for not even contemplating to
compress while tracking!

Thanks,


-Adam


Kind regards

Peter Larsen



  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Michael Dines[_2_] Michael Dines[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

cporro wrote:

if you can compress going in on PT, as some say you can, you need to
either do hardware monitoring for the vocalist or have very low
latency for them. otherwise it can be very distracting. you may be
able to have no monitoring if they sing with one can off an ear. but
latency can be a monitoring issue.


You _can_ compress while recording into Pro Tools (I pointed this out).
You can put all sorts of plug ins into the aux track, Vocal Rider, TL
Space - but there's not a lot of point.

What I use routing via the aux track for is to put in an expander gate
to cut the noise of computer hard drives (and planes on their landing
approach to Heathrow) and a limiter should I decide to shout into the
mic - so the limiter's probably redundant.

It's more for spoken word recording than music, combining the expander
gate with an EV RE27 does a very good job of enabling recording in a
less than ideal location. It's a situation where it's better to not
record something you don't want; rather than spending hours trying, and
failing, to get rid of it.
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
adam79 adam79 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On 10/29/11 3:16 PM, Michael Dines wrote:

What I use routing via the aux track for is to put in an expander gate
to cut the noise of computer hard drives (and planes on their landing
approach to Heathrow) and a limiter should I decide to shout into the
mic - so the limiter's probably redundant.

It's more for spoken word recording than music, combining the expander
gate with an EV RE27 does a very good job of enabling recording in a
less than ideal location. It's a situation where it's better to not
record something you don't want; rather than spending hours trying, and
failing, to get rid of it.


So are you saying that when the vocal mic is picking up unwanted
background noise (i.e. the headphones on the singer), you use the gate
while tracking vs. taking it out while mixing?
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil W[_3_] Phil W[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

"adam79":

So are you saying that when the vocal mic is picking up unwanted
background noise (i.e. the headphones on the singer), you use the gate
while tracking vs. taking it out while mixing?


Is it really that bad, that you need to worry about the bleed from the
headphones?
It´s always been a common side effect, but most of the time you won´t notice
the bleed in the mix anyway, so...

  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Michael Dines[_2_] Michael Dines[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

adam79 wrote:

On 10/29/11 3:16 PM, Michael Dines wrote:

What I use routing via the aux track for is to put in an expander gate
to cut the noise of computer hard drives (and planes on their landing
approach to Heathrow) and a limiter should I decide to shout into the
mic - so the limiter's probably redundant.

It's more for spoken word recording than music, combining the expander
gate with an EV RE27 does a very good job of enabling recording in a
less than ideal location. It's a situation where it's better to not
record something you don't want; rather than spending hours trying, and
failing, to get rid of it.


So are you saying that when the vocal mic is picking up unwanted
background noise (i.e. the headphones on the singer), you use the gate
while tracking vs. taking it out while mixing?


No. I'm saying that for spoken word recording, (voice overs, etc)
because the only room I have available has a couple of mildly whiny hard
drives on the other side, plus occasional large aircraft flying over
head. Using an expander gate means that the gaps in what I say are
filled with silence rather than that background noise. When I'm talking
the fact I'm using an RE27 means it doesn't pick up extraneous noise
like a condenser does. I used to use a Rode Broadcaster but, because
it's a condenser mic, it's very good at picking up all sorts of unwanted
sounds from all sorts of distances.

This isn't really a solution for recording music. I do use Sennheiser
HD280s while recording, so there's no spill from the headphones. I
would've thought that if a singer's headphones were spilling enough to
be picked up they could be changed for a pair of closed rather than open
back ones.

I realise that the ideal solution would be to treat the room I use, but
that's not practical. For me, the RE27 is ideal for close mic work
although it needs a better powered mic pre than on the 002 rack, so I
use an Alice Mic-Amp-Pak, then go through an a/d converter, and into the
002 via sp/dif.




  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Anahata Anahata is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:47:49 +0000, Michael Dines wrote:

*because it's a condenser mic*, it's very good at picking up all
sorts of unwanted sounds from all sorts of distances.


This is a popular myth.
If you put a dynamic mic and a condenser mic with similar directional
patterns the same distance from the sound source, and adjust preamp input
gains for similar levels, you will get the same background noise pickup
with either. (give or take differences in off-axis frequency response,
perhaps)

How could it be otherwise?

The only explanation I can see is that the majority of condenser mics
happen to be designed for best response when placed further away from the
sound source than typical dynamic mics. Put any mic further away from the
vocalist, of course you'll get more background.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

  #37   Report Post  
MeDicWek MeDicWek is offline
Banned
 
Posts: 2
Default

There are two plugins that can achieve some sort of vocal reduction while at the same time keeping the stereo to a decent degree: VoiceTrap and ExtraBoy Pro. Now I have a couple of questions and I hope I will get some answers:

1 Any other softwares/plugins that can do what VoiceTrap and ExtraBoy do?
NOTE: I really dont want software/plugins that produce MONO, but its good
maybe to even list those, who knows, maybe there are some I dont know.

2 I heard about that technique where you first have to extract vocals only which is easily done with ExtraBoy or VoiceTrap also and then you have to
somehow combine that with the original file and it will subtract them to leave
you with the background music only. Any more info on that, does that technique have a name even? It requires precise adjustments in a audio editor, its a
manual technique, but kinda hard to do, thats why I need more info on it.

3 I see time to time some people saying to reduce vocals using EQ and some
other basic stuff like band filters, etc. Any info in details how to achieve that for vocals?

4 Also, tell me all the ways if possible where I can remove vocal frequencies,
but it terms of frequencies, so perhaps a plugin or EQ that does that, have presets maybe.

5 Is there a way to boost the volume of the other frequencies so that
the vocals are not heard a lot?

6 What are the most efficient ways to get good quality tracks without vocals
in them? In terms of techniques or tricks?

Thanks a lot for this
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

On Nov 9, 9:51*am, MeDicWek wrote:

5 Is there a way to boost the volume of the other frequencies so that
the vocals are not heard a lot?

6 What are the most efficient ways to get good quality tracks without
vocals
in them? In terms of techniques or tricks?


Are you attempting to remove the vocals from pre-existing tracks to
use them for another purpose?

Because the most efficient way to get good quality tracks without
vocals in them is to record the instrumental tracks and not record any
vocals.

Peace,
Paul
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Compression Unit for Recording Vocals

MeDicWek wrote:

There are two plugins that can achieve some sort of vocal reduction
while at the same time keeping the stereo to a decent degree:
VoiceTrap and ExtraBoy Pro. Now I have a couple of questions and I
hope I will get some answers:


What you do not write is just what problem you want to solv in what context.
You really have to do that with such a question as there may not really
exist "An Answer" for all possible variations of this.

Also just a gentle reminder that vox humana covers approximately the range
between 80 Hz and 20+ kHz, so just filtering "the frequencies of vox" will
get you to a remarkably silent nowhere.

6 What are the most efficient ways to get good quality tracks without
vocals
in them? In terms of techniques or tricks?


That one is easy: do not allow singing in the recorded space(s)/room(s).

Thanks a lot for this


Kind regards

Peter Larsen



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Compression on Vocals Sanbar Pro Audio 11 June 14th 05 07:16 PM
recording vocals w compression? George Perfect Pro Audio 31 August 17th 04 09:31 PM
recording vocals w compression? George Perfect Pro Audio 0 July 16th 04 11:51 AM
Recording Vocals Pete A Pro Audio 15 June 12th 04 08:34 PM
RECORDING VOCALS CK Pro Audio 3 March 11th 04 12:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"